Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General Discussion / Re: The Phillip Paradox

« on: May 16, 2023, 02:20:59 AM »

I think death of the author kind of applies here. It doesn't matter very much what the author's original intent is, what matters more is what the majority of readers interpret it as. Yes if you think about it the lore behind special modifications does not imply the Andrada himself is incompetent per se, but that's how most readers interpret it.

As an example JK Rowling can insist her goblins aren't a Jewish stereotype, but a lot of readers do end up interpreting it that way (whether that's because of Rowling's bias, or the readers' bias, or both is not so relevant).

2

General Discussion / Re: The Phillip Paradox

« on: May 14, 2023, 07:48:51 AM »

Given that the Lion's Guard has never come into any major conflicts (before the player came along that is), it could simply be the Sindrians didn't know about Coherer's downside. Likely Tri-Tachyon "forgot" to mention why they didn't install Coherers on non-automated ships when they were selling it to Andrada.

3

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Derinkuyu has a mining industry, but nothing to mine!

« on: May 11, 2023, 02:30:12 AM »

This is still a thing and, not gonna lie, it actually drives me crazy since I can't fix it. Adding ore deposits in Galatia.java does nothing for some reason!

4

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: May 06, 2023, 11:02:43 PM »

Wasn't Breach supposed to get a new "high tech" sprite?

Same for the mining blaster. I'm actually rather disappointed as I'd love to use the new mining blaster on my high tech ships, but it just looks so ugly...

5

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: May 06, 2023, 01:36:24 AM »

Any ship with a d-mod is excluded from the Codex, hence why most LP ships and all the LG ships don't show up.

6

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Prometheus Mk II's Engines Are Off-Center

« on: May 05, 2023, 11:15:41 PM »

It looks like some of the engine flares are still slightly off-center, the middle-left ones especially.

7

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: May 03, 2023, 06:22:09 AM »

AstrL should lose advanced optics and gain some OP in compensation. Having it built in feels out of place and is clearly just there to be an OP tax and trap you into putting subpar beams into its slots.

8

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: April 28, 2023, 02:55:29 AM »

It is this weekend. I can feel it in my bones.

Alex please

9

General Discussion / Re: I'm already 54, will I see the game released before I die?

« on: April 09, 2023, 06:16:43 AM »

Yeah I don't care that much about reaching 1.0 (which is pretty arbitrary), the reason I get a feeling of "that's it?" when I see the patch notes is because while it is lengthy, a lot of it is balancing, fixes and new ships/weapons which... if we're being honest, is what most StarSector mods do and there's a lot more modders churning out a lot more of that kind of content.

I'm more interested in fundamental mechanical changes (and also story quests!), stuff that mods don't do. And I'm almost certainly not understanding the scale of work involved in making the game but... the only new mechanic in the next patch is the events system, and it seems a bit barebones.

I'm probably sounding ungrateful. Like I said I'm excited for the patch, but it also feels a bit anticlimatic after a year and a half.

10

General Discussion / Re: I'm already 54, will I see the game released before I die?

« on: April 09, 2023, 05:06:12 AM »

Only thing changed is that now we won't have simple intel notification of expeditions but fancy intel notifications that are much more complex and nuanced. Like ok sure that was a big thing and is the basis for future end game but come on a year and a half for this patch means 1.0 patch (not even counting ones between) is going to take three years with this pace.

I truly think we should now start with the smaller bite sized patches because it seems Alex gets lost in perfecting a bigger patch that has a lot more moving parts at once. I remember his response on twitter being that he fears the patch is not sizeable enough just yet (when I asked about one blog post). That was EIGHT months ago and beyond that we gotten one more blog post about hyperspace topography and a bunch of twitter teases about buffs/nerfs and QoL changes.

I truly realize quality work needs time but at some point we get to a critical spot where it needs to get wrapped up. Imo he needs testers, I don't know the exact numbers spent on playtesting, but one man hunting for bugs and gauging balance takes a huge toll on patch cycles. Can't even imagine how will it look like for 1.0 where everything is expected to be in tip top shape.

I gotta agree with this. I'm excited for the next patch, but I'll be honest; when I saw the patch notes in Feb my first thought was "that's it?" Was honestly expecting more after such a long patch cycle.

11

Suggestions / Re: Can we talk about the medium at the back of the Apogee?

« on: March 02, 2023, 07:58:35 AM »

IMO what the Apogee really needs is for its hardpoint large energy to be a turret.

What for?  Autopulse and Paladin may turn fast enough, but the rest are slow(ish), especially HIL.  Also, hardpoints are a bit tougher than turrets, and Apogee will likely rely on the large mounts (energy and missile) for assault.

So it can converge its firing arcs like I said. If the large energy was a turret then the Apogee can converge 1x large energy, 1x medium energy and 1x small energy on the same spot. You might even be able to use dumbfire torpedoes on the large missile if you're really good at leading your shots while flying at an angle.

I think making the medium energies fire forwards like they used to is awkward because of how far back they are, I'd rather they be able to be used as part of a broadside if the large energy could shoot sideways.

A turreted large energy would be placed in the middle of the saucer section of course. Could even make an argument for making the two small energy hardpoints turrets as well, one on each side.

12

Suggestions / Re: Can we talk about the medium at the back of the Apogee?

« on: March 02, 2023, 05:11:23 AM »

IMO what the Apogee really needs is for its hardpoint large energy to be a turret.

It's meant to be a nod to Federation starships from Star Trek, which typically has omnidirectional phasers; it would fit the explorer ship vibe better as frontal loadouts are typically found on "attack" ships whereas omnidirectional ones are better for "aggressively defensive" ships, and would let the Apogee use the Paladin PD and, more importantly, allow it to converge its large energy with one of its side medium energies (effectively making it a third "broadsider" ship, after the Conquest and Odyssey).

13

Suggestions / Re: Nerfing safety overrides

« on: March 02, 2023, 05:06:18 AM »

Dude, why are explain all this to me? I'm playing this game for years, of course i know all this.

... why are you taking my general, aimed-at-no-one post so personally? You're not even the OP and you're taking it like I'm patronising you specifically.

14

Suggestions / Re: Nerfing safety overrides

« on: March 02, 2023, 03:09:45 AM »

From both a flavour and gameplay standpoint I think Safety Overrides don't make sense on cruisers. Frigates and destroyers, fine; there's few enough moving parts that overlooking regulations is somewhat managable; but on a Cruiser there'd be so many little things going wrong that you'd have more crew trying to stop the ship from flying apart than actually manning the ship.

From a gameplay standpoint, there's a vague dichotomy of speedy/short ranged ships vs slow/long ranged ships in StarSector and SO basically pushes ships towards the speedy/short ranged side. Frigates are naturally towards that end already while cruisers tend towards the other end, so in many cases SO on a frigate or destroyer is playing to its strengths (and thus less of a paradigm shift), whereas SO on a cruiser tends to be turn about making the ship something it isn't (i.e. a big paradigm shift and used as ammo for some people to say stuff like "Eagle is fine because of SO").

So my thought is that SO should just be banned on cruisers. Yes that includes the Pather Colossus because let's be honest, it's not doing that much good on that ship anyway (and could easily be replaced by something like Unstable Injectors, plus the new Pather Venture won't have SO either).

Does SO need further nerfs if it can't be used on cruisers? I think probably not. Most it might need is a bit of a nerf on destroyers only, maybe a bigger PPT debuff on destroyers compared to frigates to represent how much harder it is to keep a larger ship from flying apart when you disable all the limits.

15

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: February 28, 2023, 04:28:59 PM »

I'm hoping that given this patch is from .95 to .96 that it will be out a few weeks after these notes, instead of a few months like we've seen with bigger version jumps.

It's been a few weeks already, so...